Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:03:37 -0800, Ashley Yakeley <ashley@semantic.org> pisze:
> Apologies if this has been discussed and I missed it. When it comes to
> writing a 'geek' prelude, what was wrong with the Basic Algebra Proposal
> found in <ftp://ftp.botik.ru/pub/local/Mechveliani/basAlgPropos/> ?
> Perhaps it could benefit from multi-parameter classes?
Let me quote myself why I don't like this proposal:
- It's too complicated.
- Relies on controversial type system features, like undecidable
instances and overlapping instances.
- Relies on type system features that are not implemented and it's
not clear if they can be correctly designed or implemented at all,
like "domain conversions".
- Has many instances that should not exist because the relevant type
does not have the class property; they return Nothing or fail,
instead of failing to compile.
- Properties like commutativity cannot be specified in Haskell.
The compiler won't be able to automatically perform any optimizations
based on commutativity.
- belongs is strange. IMHO it should always return True for valid
arguments, and invalid arguments should be impossible to construct
if the validity can be checked at all.
- Tries to turn a compiled language into an interpreted language.
FuncExpr, too much parsing (with arbitrary rules hardwired into
the language), too much runtime checks.
- It's too complicated.
- It's not true that it's "not necessary to dig into mathematics".
I studied mathematics and did not have that much of algebra.
- I perfer minBound to looking at element under Just under Just under
tuple of osetBounds.
- Uses ugly character and string arguments that tune the behavior,
e.g. in syzygyGens, divRem, canFr. I like Haskell98's divMod+quotRem
better.
- Uses unneeded sample arguments, e.g. in toEnum, zero, primes, read.
- Have I said that it's too complicated?
There were lengthy discussions about it...
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk * qrczak@knm.org.plhttp://qrczak.ids.net.pl/
\__/
^^ SYGNATURA ZASTĘPCZA
QRCZAK